6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lived until his arrest in St. Petersburg.
7.  On 7 June 2000 the applicant was charged with aggravated robbery and possession of weapons. On 17 April 2002 he was committed to stand trial before the Primorskiy District Court of St. Petersburg, composed of Ms T., the presiding judge, Mr S. and Ms B., lay judges. The Government, relying on a copy of “Supplement to list no. 1” approved on 28 August 1991 by the Head of the Primorskiy District Council of People’s Deputies and listing the names of eleven individuals, including Mr S., their home address and place of work, argued that Mr S. had been selected to serve in the Primorskiy District Court in 1991. The Government further submitted that Ms B. had been appointed as a lay judge to the Primorskiy District Court in 1999. They supported their assertion with a copy of decision no. 2156 of 7 December 1999 of the Primorskiy District Council, approving the list of lay judges for the Primorskiy District Court. According to that decision, Ms B. was elected by the Presidium of the Primorskiy District Assembly of War and Labour Veterans. Mr S. was not included in that list.
8.  The applicant unsuccessfully asked the District Court to hear several individuals who could have provided “valuable information concerning the case”. He and his lawyer also challenged the composition of the bench a number of times, arguing that the lay judges S. and B. had no right to sit on the bench and asking for documents to be produced confirming that they had been elected to serve in the Primorskiy District Court. The challenges were dismissed with the bald statement that the court’s composition was lawful.
9.  On 27 December 2002 the District Court found the applicant guilty of aggravated robbery, dismissed the charge of arms possession and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment.
10.  The applicant and his lawyer filed an appeal against the judgment of 27 December 2002. They challenged, inter alia, the composition of the bench that had given the said judgment. They claimed that the lay judges, Mr S. and Ms B., had not been appointed in accordance with the procedure established by law. They also referred to the list of lay judges of the Primorskiy District Court of St. Petersburg which had been adopted by the St. Petersburg Legislative Council on 6 November 2002. Mr S. and Ms B. were not on that list. They also indicated that St. Petersburg archives did not have any document showing that those persons had ever been included in lists of lay judges in St. Petersburg. The applicant further argued that, even assuming that Mr S. and Ms B. had been appointed as lay judges, their term of office had expired, at least on 5 August 2002 according to the decree of the President of the Russian Federation.
11.  On 14 November 2003 the St. Petersburg City Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the applicant’s conviction. The City Court ruled that the complaint about the unlawful composition of the bench was unfounded. The lay judges had been appointed in accordance with domestic law and their powers could not have been discontinued by the decree of 5 August 2002 because the case had commenced before that date and they had already served as lay judges in the earlier period.